How good a player was Mark Messier? Where does he rank?

[Sentinel]

No, I honestly think it reflects worse on Clarke than Messier. In 1996-'97 Messier had 85 points and this was his last true year as an elite player in my opinion. Team Canada was picked in November of 1997. It wasn't as if Messier should have been a mortal lock, but all of the old Oilers were even back in the 1996 considered to have had their last hurrah!

Actually, I remember that time vividly. First, Messier was left off Team Canada. Then he wasn't named to the All Star Game. I remember somebody (might've been Barry Melrose) saying "Mark Messier must be wondering, what's going on?" In the end, he and Larionov were named for the ASG by Bettman's "commissioner's decision" (has that ever been done before or since?). Seriously, Messier's stakes were way low.

I can't say I care for that method. Are there any other players in NHL history who get punished for what they accomplished from age 36-43 as much as Messier?

Let me clarify. If he was merely hanging on and compiling, I would have assigned those seasons a "0." Like Kurri in Colorado. But he was an absolute cancer. He destroyed those two teams. Hence the "-"s.

 

[tony d]

One of the best for sure, among the top 20-25 guys all time.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Actually, I remember that time vividly. First, Messier was left off Team Canada. Then he wasn't named to the All Star Game. I remember somebody (might've been Barry Melrose) saying "Mark Messier must be wondering, what's going on?" In the end, he and Larionov were named for the ASG by Bettman's "commissioner's decision" (has that ever been done before or since?). Seriously, Messier's stakes were way low.

Like the exact same thing they did the year before?

 

[Czech Your Math]

I'm not a fan of Messier, but he commands respect as a player.

I think his latter years can fairly be used to show that one player can't lead a team to victory solely through force of will and "leadership," although that should already be obvious. It shouldn't detract from his value to that point, only put his value up to that point perhaps in better perspective.

There are probably some who would say he's barely a top 10 center of all-time, if that... and others that he's a top 5 player of all-time... he was a polarizing figure.

The more I've analyzed relevant data, the more I must give Messier his due. His playoff outperformance concretized... his teams' lackluster comparative record without him in the lineup... his team success, of course. So among the #3-10 centers since WWII, whereas I once would have put him towards the bottom of the pack, I see him more as middle of the pack, and can see an argument for him being at or near the top of that pack.

 

[Sentinel]

Like the exact same thing they did the year before?

Thanks, I really didn't know. Who did they pick in 97?

 

[KMart27]

Thanks, I really didn't know. Who did they pick in 97?

91: Bobby Smith and Guy Lafleur
92: Bryan Trottier and Larry Robinson
93: Brad Marsh and Randy Carlyle
94: Dave Taylor and Joe Mullen
96: Denis Savard and Craig MacTavish
97: Tony Granato, Slava Fetisov, Dale Hawerchuk and Dale Hunter
98: Mark Messier, Al MacInnis, Igor Larionov and Jari Kurri
00: Mark Messier

 

[The Panther]

In 1996-'97 Messier had 85 points and this was his last true year as an elite player in my opinion.

Yes, and you should also mention that he (actually) had 84 points, but missed 11 games, and this while sharing center time with Gretzky. He was on pace for 97 points at age 36. The previous year he'd scored 47 goals in 74 games, the best goals-per-game of his career.

Messier wasn't really a "polarizing" figure at all until he went to Vancouver. It's Canucks fans (who, in fairness, have never experienced a champion) who continually browbeat him, trying to lower his immense status and legend in the game.

It wasn't so much Messier who hurt the Canucks as it was the Canucks that hurt Messier.

Anyway, I reject this notion that we 'subtract' from a player's impact because they had a handful of not-bad, past-their-prime seasons after 18 outstanding years.

It's not like Messier was riding the bench and sitting the press-box his last years. The Rangers were pathetic when he rejoined them, but he finished 5th in scoring (age 40), 10th in scoring (age 41), 4th in scoring (age 42), and 2nd in scoring (age 43). His final season, he had less ice-time than Nedved and Kovalev, and beat them both in scoring.

 

[Trottier]

I disagree with anyone who says it tarnishes a player's image to play past their prime. You only live once and if you're lucky you get to play/work doing something you love. I say stay as long as you can until they tell you to go away.

Thank YOU!

Just love those who demand that this or that player "just retire already!". Who the hell are you or I to be dictating anyone else's life?

Likewise, the idea of "tarnished legacies"...worry about creating your own legacy.

A guy like Messier was "in the ring" for over 20 years. An imperfect human being? Big friggin' deal. Who isn't? A "dirrrrty" mean player? Damn straight. Part of what made him great. And, he showed up and performed, superbly. As opposed to throwing spitballs from the sidelines.

Just my opinion.

I'm not a fan of Messier, but he commands respect as a player.

Well put. You see, unfortunately some folks simply can't (or won't) make that distinction.

 

[Zil]

Let me clarify. If he was merely hanging on and compiling, I would have assigned those seasons a "0." Like Kurri in Colorado. But he was an absolute cancer. He destroyed those two teams. Hence the "-"s.

I can't speak for the very angry Canucks fans, but the Rangers were already thoroughly destroyed by the time Messier came back. He failed to elevate an awful group of veterans playing out the string with no farm system to speak of. I don't know why he should've been expected to do so in his age 40 to 43 seasons. Seriously take a look at those Rangers teams. You had:

Brian Leetch still a very effective offensive player, but not capable of carrying the load on the blue line.

Inconsistent talents in Nedved, Hlavac, Dvorak.

The tail ends of Theo Fleury, Eric Lindros, Pavel Bure. We got brief glimpses of who they used to be in between injuries and inconsistent play.

A young flash in the pan in Mike York. Tomas Kloucek appeared to be a talented young defender before injuries derailed his career. And who can forget mega-bust Jamie Lundmark who (along with legend Pavel Brendl) was the return on a 1999 trade of a young center named Marc Savard. I wonder what became of him? Oh and Jed Ortmeyer. Ranger fans like him because he actually tried hard, which was a unique trait on those rosters.

Expensive mercenaries Bobby Holik and Darius Kasparaitis did exactly what you'd expect when asked to fill far larger roles than they were capable of.

The immortal Dale Purinton played 40+ games in every single season of Messier, part II. He then fortunately disappeared, never to be heard from again.

Now I'm sure there was a bit of a country club atmosphere on those rosters and I'm sure Messier at least partially contributed to it, but he was rejoining a team that had already missed the playoffs three years in a row and that had actually already doomed itself before he left the first time. Sather's pre-lockout years continued a downward trend, but Neil Smith is the man who engineered the dark ages, arguably starting with moves made before the Rangers even won in 94. I blame this series of trades (you can argue the first two were necessary to win the Cup, although I happen to believe they're part of the reason the Rangers struggled so much in the later rounds):

March 17, 1993: Doug Weight traded to Edmonton by NY Rangers for Esa Tikkanen, March 17, 1993.

March 21, 1994: Tony Amonte traded to Chicago by NY Rangers with the rights to Matt Oates for Stephane Matteau and Brian Noonan, March 21, 1994.

August 31, 1995: Sergei Zubov traded to Pittsburgh by NY Rangers with Petr Nedved for Luc Robitaille and Ulf Samuelsson, August 31, 1995.

March 14, 1996: Mattias Norstrom traded to Los Angeles by NY Rangers with Ray Ferraro, Ian Laperriere, Nathan Lafayette and NY Rangers' 4th round choice (Sean Blanchard) in 1997 Entry Draft for Marty McSorley, Jari Kurri and Shane Churla, March 14, 1996.

November 25, 1998: Alexei Kovalev traded to Pittsburgh by NY Rangers with Harry York for Petr Nedved, Chris Tamer and Sean Pronger, November 25, 1998.

June 26, 1999: Marc Savard traded to Calgary by NY Rangers with NY Rangers 1st round choice (Oleg Saprykin) in 1999 Entry Draft for the rights to Jan Hlavac and Calgary's 1st (Jamie Lundmark) and 3rd (later traded back to Calgary - Calgary selected Craig Andersson) round choices in 1999 Entry Draft, June 26, 1999.

Also, the Rangers had no goaltending whatsoever after injuries caused Richter's deterioration.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

I'm not a fan of Messier, but he commands respect as a player.

I think his latter years can fairly be used to show that one player can't lead a team to victory solely through force of will and "leadership," although that should already be obvious. It shouldn't detract from his value to that point, only put his value up to that point perhaps in better perspective.

Its only lazy media writers who perpetuate that idea, though. I mean, I'm a pretty big Messier cheerleader around here, and even I'm sick of hearing about 'the guarantee'. Lazy media continually return to those same tropes instead of actually putting any effort into their work and, as a consequence, you have a big segment of fans who didn't watch the guy play and think he's overrated because they're justifiably tired of hearing the same cliched story over and over again. Credit to you for looking into it deeper and making up your own mind.

But yes, of course, he didn't win championships on his own. That's silly. But he was arguably the best forward on three Cup winners (84, 90, 94) and probably second-best on two more (87, 88... where he's only edged by the best player of all-time). Kurri is probably better than him in '85, where he's likely third. He didn't win them on his own, but he was instrumental in each of them.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

Let me clarify. If he was merely hanging on and compiling, I would have assigned those seasons a "0." Like Kurri in Colorado. But he was an absolute cancer. He destroyed those two teams. Hence the "-"s.

For a guy who LOVES to accuse others of bias, you sure do like to trot this nonsense out over and over without a shred of proof to back it up.

 

[Sentinel]

For a guy who LOVES to accuse others of bias, you sure do like to trot this nonsense out over and over without a shred of proof to back it up.

What bias would it be? Anti-Oilers? Anti-Rangers? Anti-Canadian? Pro-Canucks? "Bias" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Ask Vadim Sharifijanov about Messier's time with the Canucks.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

What bias would it be? Anti-Oilers? Anti-Rangers? Anti-Canadian? Pro-Canucks? "Bias" doesn't mean what you think it means.

You're on record as not liking mean/dirty players, and I think its pretty clear to all that if you can downgrade any contemporaries of certain Red Wings or certain Russian players you will do it (all while stamping your feet and claiming 'Canadian bias' I might add).

Ask Vadim Sharifijanov about Messier's time with the Canucks.

I have several times gone through the whole 'Messier in Vancouver' debate and have yet to see anything that supports this 'cancer' idea except for one self-serving quote from Gino Odjick of all people.

But regardless. You're the one making the claim. You back it up.

 

[Sentinel]

You're on record as not liking mean/dirty players, and I think its pretty clear to all that if you can downgrade any contemporaries of certain Red Wings or certain Russian players you will do it (all while stamping your feet and claiming 'Canadian bias' I might add).

So it's some mysterious "anti-dirty contemporary non-Red Wings" bias? Gotcha. Makes perfect sense. I'll be sure to mention it next time there is a Forsberg, Toews, Arnott conversation.

So if I value Toews more than Ovechkin, where does that fit?

 

[BJCOLLINS]

please people don't embarrass your selves by trying to put that mommy's boy Linda Lindros in the same category when mentioning Mess's name!!!!!!!!


Mess is a HHOF (first ballot), perennial all star,6 cups, multiple hart and other trophies.....tuff as nails, all heart hockey player.

no player in the NHL today could match what he brought for years.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Ask Markus Naslund, Todd Bertuzzi, and Ed Jovanovski what they thought of Mark Messier.. Those guys became all-stars around Messier's time in Vancouver (or shortly after), and all attribute a lot of their successes to Messier's leadership.

 

[Big Phil]

How does Messier win the Hart in 1991-92 (not just win it, but get all but 2 1st place votes) . A defenseman on his team (Leetch) put up 5 less points than him (102 PTS v 107 PTS) and Lemieux put up a ridiculous 131 PTS in 64 games.

The Rangers were a normal run of the mill team before he came. Leetch was there at this time as well. They didn't excel. Messier arrives and they immediately end up 1st overall in points, the first time the Rangers had done this in 50 years. So there's that. Leetch also got a lot of credit for the Norris trophy, I am guessing the voters may have felt that was good enough for him. I don't know why, but Leetch is one of the best all-time greats who had a very unusual Hart voting record. He finished 9th, 16th and 22nd. That's it. He won the Norris two of those years.

Now, I agree Messier should have won it. The Rangers had many more points than the Pens. That mattered. Mario missed some time as well. Maybe an 80 game season would have begat a 165 point season for him, then it would have been hard to go against him because we'd have to assume the Pens win more games. So that's why Messier beat Mario that year. Plus Stevens had 123 points on the Pens, not much less than Mario that year. As for Leetch, I think people felt Messier was the more important player, and he was, but keep in mind, when Leetch went down for the most part of the 1993 season the Rangers missed the playoffs. We know this now, didn't know it in 1992.

Actually, I remember that time vividly. First, Messier was left off Team Canada. Then he wasn't named to the All Star Game. I remember somebody (might've been Barry Melrose) saying "Mark Messier must be wondering, what's going on?" In the end, he and Larionov were named for the ASG by Bettman's "commissioner's decision" (has that ever been done before or since?). Seriously, Messier's stakes were way low.

Let me clarify. If he was merely hanging on and compiling, I would have assigned those seasons a "0." Like Kurri in Colorado. But he was an absolute cancer. He destroyed those two teams. Hence the "-"s.

Those last 7 years are forgettable for him of course, but are they useless? It shouldn't take anything away from him. He entered Vancouver and a very selfish season from Bure who had no interest in staying in Vancouver after that season. Then there's Mogilny, geez, flip a coin with that guy. Then go to New York starting in 2000 again and if there was ever an underachieving bunch of millionaires this team was it. I agree a great leader could have done more, but it is hard to get right inside the dressing room there. Messier just couldn't do the same things he could do 10-15 years ago. Maybe he was losing respect, I don't know.

I'm sorry, it still doesn't change what he did prior to that. Gretzky's last season was injury filled and had him score 9 goals. A person seeing him for the first time would wonder how this is the same guy who scored 92 goals once. Doesn't change a thing though. Don't you agree?

 

[tjcurrie]

Anyway, I reject this notion that we 'subtract' from a player's impact because they had a handful of not-bad, past-their-prime seasons after 18 outstanding years.

I do too. What if he had played another 10 years, how would that have affected anything that really matters? It wouldn't have. I mean, you wouldn't judge the taste of milk by drinking it a week passed its expiry date, would you? Same thing.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Then go to New York starting in 2000 again and if there was ever an underachieving bunch of millionaires this team was it. I agree a great leader could have done more, but it is hard to get right inside the dressing room there. Messier just couldn't do the same things he could do 10-15 years ago. Maybe he was losing respect, I don't know.

I think its really hard to speculate on what happened in chapter two of the Rangers because of the mix of players that team had. So many quick fix attempts by Sather and so many players that seemed to be trying to figure out if they still had it. I wonder if the Messier dressing room rant got old after he could not back it up with his play anymore? Was he able to adapt to a different way of leadership? Or was it the team chemistry thing?

 

[Big Phil]

I think its really hard to speculate on what happened in chapter two of the Rangers because of the mix of players that team had. So many quick fix attempts by Sather and so many players that seemed to be trying to figure out if they still had it. I wonder if the Messier dressing room rant got old after he could not back it up with his play anymore? Was he able to adapt to a different way of leadership? Or was it the team chemistry thing?

I don't know. I think what gets forgotten is that a Rangers team with Messier, Gretzky, Leetch and Richter in 1996-'97 went to the semi final. Messier is gone, the rest stay and the team misses the playoffs immediately. I think people forget this when they look at Messier in his later years. The team he initially left was in ruins after he was gone.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

I don't know. I think what gets forgotten is that a Rangers team with Messier, Gretzky, Leetch and Richter in 1996-'97 went to the semi final.

Yes. Last magic carpet ride. Led mainly by 99's play moreso than Messier's, but nonetheless, it looked like it was 1984 for a brief period. I was one of those hoping for them to defeat the Lindros led Flyers. Alas, but like the 84 Isles, the 97 Rangers ran out of gas and passed the torch. This time it was dropped though...

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

I think its really hard to speculate on what happened in chapter two of the Rangers because of the mix of players that team had. So many quick fix attempts by Sather and so many players that seemed to be trying to figure out if they still had it. I wonder if the Messier dressing room rant got old after he could not back it up with his play anymore? Was he able to adapt to a different way of leadership? Or was it the team chemistry thing?

Several players (including Fleury in his bio) talk about how players of that era of Rangers teams went to the rink separately, then left separately. A lot of interests outside of the rink, a sense from a lot of guys on big contracts that they had nothing left to prove, no sense of team. . . tough to lead a bunch that doesn't want to be led, I think (although Mess just flat-out didn't have it by that time either).

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

This is really all that needs to be said:

This is the ultimate Messier hockey game -- Oilers' season/dynasty on the line (they're facing a 3 - 1 deficit in games if they lose) on the road. Messier takes two nasty penalties (and elbows Savard in the head and gets away with it), scores two spectacular goals with speed and determination, sets up two more, single-handedly wins the game for Edmonton, which thereafter went 6 and 1 and won the Stanley Cup.

I have never seen one player dominate a team's success as much as Mark Messier with Edmonton in 1989-90 (and I watched Gretzky in the mid-80s). In fact, from 1989 to 1992 he was better than Gretzky overall, and he probably did more than Lemieux, too.

And here's the thing with Messier. The stat line only tells half the story.

That was also the game where Messier was already in his equipment and rocking back and forth in his stall like an hour or something before puck drop. Several teammates have commented on seeing him there like he was in a trance, and the impression it made on them.

During the game, Roenick (in his bio, which I don't have in front of me so I can't quote directly) said that Mess looked like he was 'breathing fire' and was so intimidating Roenick 'had trouble looking him in the eye'.

Steve Smith on that same performance:

"I will never, ever forget this, Mark is sitting in the penalty box, fuming, furious. We're looking at him across the ice from the bench and you could tell someone was going to pay when he got out of there.

He steps out of the box, collects the puck and starts barreling down on Doug Wilson. Now remember, this is when Doug Wilson was winning Norris trophies. But I have never seen fear in a player's eyes like Doug Wilson's. Never. He looked like the red-headed stepchild. He had no idea what was going to happen. He had no idea how to handle this ... this force of nature coming at him."

John Muckler:

That's probably the best game I've ever seen Mark Messier play. He took two penalties on the first two shifts as if to let everybody know this was going to be his night so they had better get out of his way. After that, he was the most feared player on the ice and had all kinds of space. He did everything a player could do. he scored, he backchecked, he was physical, he just dominated the game. That turned the series around for us.

So yeah. A player who, in a must-win game, fires up his teammates in the dressing room, scores four points, dominates physically, and genuinely intimidates the opposition. That's why he's ranked where he's ranked.

 

[The Panther]

Awesome Messier highlights circa 1980-1990 here:

Most of these were in the playoffs. Dude could shoot.

 

[Big Phil]

Awesome Messier highlights circa 1980-1990 here:

Most of these were in the playoffs. Dude could shoot.

One thing very underrated about Messier, he was excellent on breakaways. Watching this video makes you appreciate Messier a lot. Also a very underrated skater in his time.

My favourite type of Messier goal was his trademark goal. Coming in on the off wing and beating the goalie with a nice little wrist shot going the opposite way. He scored his 500th goal that way. It was his bread and butter.